Has the lack of a recommended practice in the core RDF specifications,
for representing unary predicates caused problems for anyone? Also,
what approaches have been used for representing unary predicates?
Brian
Aaron Swartz wrote:
>
> The spec explains how to deal with relationships > 3 (rdf:value) but not
> those < 3 (i.e. two). I'd like to suggest we introduce two new properties:
>
> rdf:is
> rdf:isNot
>
> This saves us from having to do something klugey like:
>
> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:likesChocolate 0 .
>
> and also allows RDF processors to know that it's part of two-valued logic
> and treat it properly.
>
> --
> Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| The Info Network
> <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://theinfo.org>
> AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the way you want the web to be